The news coming from PG&E these days is trending from bad to worse for the Smart Grid and for this country’s citizens.
First they created a public relations disaster with their smart meter rollout, which now has its own term called “the Bakersfield effect”. PG&E investment in a sensible communications plan and budget could have prevented this problem. The impacts of the Bakersfield effect are widespread. Smart meter rollouts in other utilities are delayed or postponed, and each setback hinders realization of their Smart Grid objectives.
Second, PG&E filed a tariff proposal that would reduce their current 5 tier electricity pricing structure to 3 tiers. Under the current structure, the more energy you use, the higher your rates. This provides financial incentives for Californians with high bills to seek solutions like solar panels or energy efficiency investments or simple energy conservation behaviors. The proposed flattening of this program rewards electricity guzzlers at the expense of energy-conscious consumers. It is akin to asking drivers of gas-sipping cars to subsidize the gas for Hummers. Solar companies are already on record stating that this tariff change, if approved by the California Public Utilities Commission, would remove financial incentives for many homeowners to add solar generation and thereby defeat two key Smart Grid objectives – increased renewable energy and more active consumer participation.
And finally, there’s Community Choice Aggregation and Proposition 16. Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) is available in several states including California and is an interesting market model to accelerate the introduction of renewable energy into the grid and enable more consumer participation to reduce energy use. The program details vary in each state, but all allow cities or counties to purchase and/or generate electricity for residential and business use within their boundaries. The local investor-owned utility (IOU) delivers electricity through its transmission and distribution network and continues meter reading, billing, and maintenance services. The customers in the CCA footprint have the ability to opt-out of the CCA program, but why would they? A CCA arrangement means local community control over energy resources, an increased reliance on renewables, plus a lower overall cost of electricity.
For example, a local effort in Marin County projects that adoption of a CCA program for the county and its communities would result in:
- Annual average electricity cost savings of $6.8 million spread amongst it customers
- Increased renewable energy utilization to 51% by 2017 or sooner – double the renewable energy resources provided by PG&E in that timeframe
- Improved rate stability for local residents and businesses because a CCA is responsive to its local customers, not to remote shareholders
Prop 16, misleadingly titled the Taxpayer’s Right to Choose Act, is sponsored and funded by PG&E, which is committing up to $35M to the June 8 campaign. PG&E would like to kill CCA to protect their monopoly powers. While this effort pleases Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investors, it has negative impacts for the Smart Grid and us. First, discouraging community-sourced generation reduces the resiliency of the Smart Grid. Communities that have their own sources of electricity could contribute electricity or reduce energy consumption during grid disturbances and thus help PG&E continue uninterrupted electricity service to all ratepayers. Second, it casts a pall on the number of new market models, products, and services that can be introduced, which is one of the seven characteristics of the Smart Grid identified by the Department of Energy (DOE) to accelerate deployment of solutions that improve our energy security and reduce greenhouse gases. Third, community-based programs that promote energy efficiency and responsive energy reduction programs have unique, localized value propositions to lower community energy costs that could not be matched by a monolithic entity like PG&E. See this link for more information.
These PG&E actions, if allowed to go forward, are serious obstacles to the deployment of Smart Grid technologies and services, and in turn hinder the ability of this nation to improve our energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce energy costs for consumers. Satisfying Wall Street should not (again) be a financial, environmental, and national security cost to American taxpayers, ratepayers, and consumers.